It's sad to see a $500 video card coupled with a 2.8GHz CPU play next
generation games @ 50-70 fps with 1024x768 and NO AF or FSAA.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=1

--
Frank
http://www.adventurousduo.com

Keep in mind that most of those games are not first person shooters where we
are used to seeing 100+ fps scores.

Also, I think it's good to see the next gen games clock at those speeds
because it shows me that the new games are pushing the new hardware which
creates demand for newer faster graphic cards. You see, that's part of the
problem we have had.... Most of us who bought 9700 pros over a year ago are
still enjoying max frame rates because the games are only now catching up to
it's capabilites and their has been no reason to upgrade our video cards
because of this. ATI even pushed their R400 back 12 months because who
would buy it if no games even pushed their 9700's to the limit?

For comparison, when Q3A was released, 100+ scores were common which proved
that the hardware was far ahead of the software at that time. Now, with
these new more demanding games, there will be a demand for the R400 next
spring.

-Tim

"Frank" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9lCeb.370$(E-Mail Removed)...
> It's sad to see a $500 video card coupled with a 2.8GHz CPU play next
> generation games @ 50-70 fps with 1024x768 and NO AF or FSAA.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=1
>
> --
> Frank
> http://www.adventurousduo.com
>
>

Oh, no. I agree. What I don't like is the $500 price tag. I personally feel
that the technology isn't worth that much. I understand that most of the
cost of a graphics cards comes from Research and Development, Ram,
advertising, etc rather than the cost of manufacturing the GPU, card, etc. I
think a card such as an 9800TX should be $300 at the most. Not $500. Maybe
they would sell more of them? Who knows. They are the 'experts' not me, so
they should knwo the statistics.

I do agree that the games are finally getting up to speed. I too bought a
GF3 only to find that an Xbox looked better because it was taking advantage
of the card. Other games weren't because people on TNTs wouldn't be able to
paly them. There was talk of PC gaming dying and goign to consoles. Now,
with these better looking games, HL 2, Doom 3, etc. that kind of talk should
be dead. After all, how good can a video game look on a regular, non-HD
T.V.?

--
Frank
http://www.adventurousduo.com

"Tim Miser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Keep in mind that most of those games are not first person shooters where
we
> are used to seeing 100+ fps scores.
>
> Also, I think it's good to see the next gen games clock at those speeds
> because it shows me that the new games are pushing the new hardware which
> creates demand for newer faster graphic cards. You see, that's part of
the
> problem we have had.... Most of us who bought 9700 pros over a year ago
are
> still enjoying max frame rates because the games are only now catching up
to
> it's capabilites and their has been no reason to upgrade our video cards
> because of this. ATI even pushed their R400 back 12 months because who
> would buy it if no games even pushed their 9700's to the limit?
>
> For comparison, when Q3A was released, 100+ scores were common which
proved
> that the hardware was far ahead of the software at that time. Now, with
> these new more demanding games, there will be a demand for the R400 next
> spring.
>
> -Tim
>
> "Frank" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9lCeb.370$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > It's sad to see a $500 video card coupled with a 2.8GHz CPU play next
> > generation games @ 50-70 fps with 1024x768 and NO AF or FSAA.
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=1
> >
> > --
> > Frank
> > http://www.adventurousduo.com
> >
> >
>
>